nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Descriptor
Descriptor, saving throw, and immunity relation Would it be easier, if, instead of going back and forth about whether the descriptor corresponds to the saving throw or the immunity, simply cross out the NWN types (including damage) that are not used in a saving throw (even if immunity works), and in the notes section note if the immunity is inconsistent with the saving throw. (e.g. for weird the descriptor would be fear, mind-affecting, death and the notes will state that immunity to fear also protects the target, while immunity to death magic will not). 15:19, November 7, 2012 (UTC) *This woulnd't be good. Nobody ever said that descriptor = saving throw subtype. There is no reason to cross out descriptor indicating damage if that spell doesn't allow saving throw at all. Still its clear that damage from spell will be of that type and damage immunity/resistance still applies. Current state isn't ideal also, but unless we redefine descriptor, there will always be a need for extra note. AlwaysLoggedOfEditor 08:15, November 8, 2012 (UTC) :*I am responding to an edit war, one of which you represent a faction. You claim "Nobody ever said descriptor = saving throw subtype" after editing the following: "Specifically, descriptors are used as the "versus" part when a saving throw bonus applies versus something..." Further looking in the edit history there are reverting of edits for additions to the destroy alignment articles for simply adding in the saving throw and subtype when the save and descriptor were already listed. I find edit wars objectionable, and best handled by talk pages so that a consensus is reached. 17:44, November 8, 2012 (UTC) ::*Meant, nobody oficial. In fact, I've seen this first here. Now since this actually doesn't match in more than 50% cases of spells, I edited the sentence that it "might refer to the saving throw subtype", which seems more appropriate to me. Of course, if the descriptor info is copied from some NWN manual then Im wrong and you can freely revert my edit. FreeEditWarrior 18:20, November 8, 2012 (UTC) ::* With regards to the destroy alignment articles, that was also taken to the talk pages: talk:destroy good gaze. --The Krit (talk) 19:49, November 21, 2012 (UTC) * The proposal sounds possibly easier, but I have been putting off looking carefully at 77.92.213.119's most recent edits (because I am still ignoring 77.92.213.119 as much as possible, and the edits did not appear to be intentional vandalism). If another voice is needed, I could take that look. --The Krit (talk) 18:49, November 8, 2012 (UTC) * So, you have decided to mark all the discrepacy I pointed out as redundant just so that your definition of descriptor matched. Well done, your last edits across those spells I edited makes as a whole absolutely no sense. And that is only a fraction of these issues. There is much more spells whose saving throw subtypes doesn't match description or are ignored. Guess thats all the God's plan as usual. So you are saying, that the descriptor always refer to the saving throw subtype. And all those spells where it isn't true are just intented to be the exception or the spells' descriptions are bugged, right? 19:51, November 19, 2012 (UTC) * So I've looked at the edits and thought about the proposal, and I think the proposal would not be an improvement overall, as the spells being looked at are exceptions to the general rule. The basic NWScript commands to roll saving throws report when the roll is unneeded due to the target being immune to the "vs. X" part of the save. While most spells do not call these commands directly, the library function they do use converts "unneeded" to "failed" with the expectation that the spell scripts then apply an effect of type X (same type as was saved against), which produces the immunity message. There are a few spells that do not meet this expectation, and some oddball cases with multiple saves versus different things, but generally the idea "descriptor = save type and immunity" seems to apply. Complicating the general case in order to accommodate exceptions is usually not a good idea. In fact, I do not see how this proposal would make anything easier. The edits by 77.92.213.119 to which this would apply were to the oddball spells with multiple descriptors. Since a save can only have one "versus" part, there would need to be a note explaining the saves anyway. If there are extra applicable immunities, a note would probably be needed either way (either to list the immunity or to explain that it does not affect saving throws). Nothing really gained by complicating the "descriptor" concept that I see. --The Krit (talk) 19:47, November 21, 2012 (UTC) :* Apparently death magic immunity does not trigger the expected result ("unneeded") in the saving throw commands. (I suppose that is to support implosion?) So immunity to death magic is somewhat likely to not translate into immunity to death spells. :( For example: Finger of death has the needed extra processing, but slay living does not. --The Krit (talk) 23:51, February 21, 2013 (UTC) :** Would that make the list in saving throw (disease, fear, mind-affecting, poison, and traps) exhaustive for the saving throw types that can give a 2 result when the immunity is present? 02:06, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :::* The list is exhaustive. Paralysis, additionally, does not return 2 for immunity, and neither do the damage types. Some feat immunities, like venom immunity, do not return 2 on a standard saving throw (but will not use a saving throw within the poison effect). WhiZard (talk) 22:38, February 27, 2013 (UTC)